Bernard J. Singer v. The Paul Revere Life Insurance Company et al

Filing 107

JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS by Judge S. James Otero: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED AS FOLLOWS: 1. Plaintiffs claims for relief against Paul Revere and Prudential for declaratory relief, bad faith, and breach of contract are barr ed by the statute of limitations under California Code of Civil Procedure Sections 337 and 339 and are dismissed with prejudice; 2. That judgment is entered in favor of Paul Revere and Prudential and against Plaintiff; 3. That Plaintiff shall take nothing by way of his Third AmendedComplaint; 4. That Paul Revere and Prudential shall be entitled to recover fromPlaintiff their costs of suit; and 5. That this case is dismissed with prejudice. (SEE DOCUMENT FOR FURTHER DETAILS) (vv)

1

JS-6

2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11 BERNARD SINGER, by TAMARA
SINGER, Guardian Ad Litem,
12
Plaintiff,
13
vs.
14
THE PAUL REVERE LIFE INSURANCE
15 COMPANY, THE PRUDENTIAL
INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA,
16 TRUSTEE OF THE AICPA INSURANCE
TRUST,
17
Defendants.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Case No. 2:14-cv-08700-SJO-MRW
(Assigned to The Honorable S.
James Otero Courtroom "1")
JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF
DEFENDANTS

1

JUDGMENT

2

Plaintiff Bernard Singer (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against The Paul Revere

3

Life Insurance Company (“Paul Revere”) and The Prudential Insurance Company of

4

America (“Prudential”) on November 17, 2014. (Docket No. 1) The Complaint

5

alleged claims for relief for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of

6

good faith and fair dealing (i.e., bad faith) and declaratory relief arising out of

7

Defendants’ respective denials of Plaintiff’s claim for disability income benefits

8

under (1) a disability insurance policy that Paul Revere issued to Plaintiff, and (2) a

9

group disability policy issued by Prudential to JPMorgan Chase Bank, as Trustee of

10

the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants Insurance Trust, under which

11

Plaintiff was a participant.

12

I.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

13

A.

14

Paul Revere moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint on the grounds that his

15

breach of contract claim was barred by the four-year statute of limitations under

16

California Code of Civil Procedure Section 337 and that his bad faith claim was

17

barred by the two-year statute of limitations under California Code of Civil

18

Procedure Section 339. (Docket No. 12) Paul Revere also asserted that Plaintiff’s

19

declaratory relief claim was time-barred on the same grounds.1 Mangini v. Aerojet-

20

Gen. Corp., 230 Cal. App. 3d 1125, 1155 (1991) (“the statute of limitations

21

governing a request for declaratory relief is the one applicable to an ordinary legal

22

or equitable action based on the same claim.”) The court granted Paul Revere’s

23

motion to dismiss, concluding that Plaintiff’s allegations were “too conclusory

24

plausibly to plead that he was ‘insane.’” (Docket No. 27, p. 8) The Court gave

Dismissal of the original complaint

25
26
1

27
28

Prudential answered Plaintiff’s initial complaint, and asserted the statute of limitations as an affirmative
defense to all claims alleged against Prudential. (Docket No. 10). Specifically, Prudential alleged, inter alia, that
Plaintiff’s claims for breach of contract and declaratory relief were barred by the four-year statute of limitations, and
that his claim for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing was barred by the applicable two-year statute of
limitations. (Id., p. 10).

1

1

Plaintiff leave to amend his Complaint to plead facts demonstrating grounds for

2

tolling the statute of limitations.

3

B.

4

Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) for breach of contract,

5

bad faith and declaratory relief on April 7, 2015. (Docket No. 28) Paul Revere and

6

Prudential moved to dismiss all claims for relief alleged in the FAC based on the

7

statute of limitations. (Docket Nos. 29 and 34) The Court granted the motions to

8

dismiss the FAC without prejudice. (Docket No. 50)

9

C.

Dismissal of the first amended complaint

Dismissal of the second amended complaint

10

Plaintiff filed his Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) for breach of

11

contract, bad faith and declaratory relief on September 4, 2015. (Docket No. 56)

12

Paul Revere and Prudential again moved to dismiss all claims for relief alleged in

13

the SAC based on the statute of limitations. (Docket Nos. 57 and 58) The Court

14

granted the motions to dismiss the SAC without prejudice. (Docket No. 72)

15

D.

16

Plaintiff filed his Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”) for breach of contract,

17

bad faith and declaratory relief on December 31, 2015. (Docket No. 75) Paul

18

Revere and Prudential again filed motions to dismiss on the grounds that all of

19

Plaintiff’s claims for relief were time barred. (Docket Nos. 80 and 81) With respect

20

to Paul Revere, Plaintiff’s claims were time barred because Paul Revere

21

unequivocally denied Plaintiff’s claim for disability income benefits on June 1,

22

2009, thereby triggering the accrual of the statute of limitations on each of

23

Plaintiff’s claims. Plaintiff waited more than four years after June 1, 2009 – until

24

November 17, 2014 – before filing this action.

25

Plaintiff’s claims were time barred because Prudential unequivocally denied

26

Plaintiff’s claim for disability benefits on August 13, 2010, thereby triggering the

27

accrual of the statute of limitations on each of Plaintiff’s claims alleged against

Dismissal of the third amended complaint

28
2

With respect to Prudential,

1

Prudential. Plaintiff waited more than four years after August 13, 2010 before filing

2

this action on November 17, 2014.

3

In the TAC, Plaintiff alleged that the statute of limitations should be tolled

4

because he had been insane at all relevant times. Plaintiff alleged that at the time of

5

trial, he would present testimony from his physicians and/or expert witnesses who

6

would corroborate Plaintiff’s claimed insanity for the entire relevant period.

7

Plaintiff also alleged that his mental condition had not changed since May 2008.

8

The Court granted Defendants’ motions to dismiss the TAC without

9

prejudice, concluding that Plaintiff’s allegation that other physicians would

10

corroborate his claim of insanity at the time of trial merely indicated a possibility of

11

pleading plausible allegations in the future.

12

Additionally, with respect to Plaintiff’s allegations regarding his mental

13

condition in 2008 (that Plaintiff had difficulty concentrating and recalling

14

information, had continuing symptoms, was restricted from doing calculations and

15

could only do limited reading), the Court explained that it had already determined

16

that the substance of those allegations was too conclusory and insufficient to

17

demonstrate grounds for tolling based on insanity. (Docket No. 91, p. 7)

18

II.

PLAINTIFF WAS GIVEN LEAVE TO FILE A FOURTH AMENDED

19

COMPLAINT, BUT CHOSE NOT TO DO SO

20

When it granted Defendants’ motions to dismiss the TAC, the Court gave

21

Plaintiff leave to file a Fourth Amended Complaint by March 8, 2016. (Docket No.

22

91, p. 8) However, Plaintiff did not file a Fourth Amended Complaint by that

23

deadline, and instead filed an ex parte application on March 8, 2016, requesting that

24

the Court give him additional time, until March 23, 2016, to file a Fourth Amended

25

Complaint. (Docket No. 92)

26

The Court granted Plaintiff’s ex parte request and extended his deadline to

27

file a Fourth Amended Complaint to March 23, 2016. (Docket No. 96) However,

28

Plaintiff did not file a Fourth Amended Complaint by March 23, 2016. The Court
3

1

then issued an Order to Show Cause for Plaintiff to explain, in writing by April 1,

2

2016, why the Court should not dismiss the case for lack of prosecution. (Docket

3

No. 97)

4

Plaintiff’s counsel filed a declaration in response to the Order to Show Cause

5

on April 1, 2016, in which he stated that Plaintiff “elected not to file a Fourth

6

Amended Complaint,” and instead elected to “stand on the Third Amended

7

Complaint.” (Docket No. 98).

8

On April 29, 2016, the Court entered orders granting Paul Revere’s and

9

Prudential’s motions to dismiss Plaintiff’s TAC with prejudice. (Docket Nos. 103

10
11
12
13

and 104).
In light of the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND
DECREED AS FOLLOWS:
1.

Plaintiff’s claims for relief against Paul Revere and Prudential for

14

declaratory relief, bad faith, and breach of contract are barred by the statute of

15

limitations under California Code of Civil Procedure Sections 337 and 339 and are

16

dismissed with prejudice;

17
18
19
20
21
22
23

2.

That judgment is entered in favor of Paul Revere and Prudential and

against Plaintiff;
3.

That Plaintiff shall take nothing by way of his Third Amended

Complaint;
4.

That Paul Revere and Prudential shall be entitled to recover from

Plaintiff their costs of suit; and
5.

That this case is dismissed with prejudice.

24
25

IT IS SO ORDERED.

26
27

DATED:

May 23, 2016

The Honorable S. James Otero
Unites States District Judge

28
4